The District Housing Committee Sahiwal introduced Area Development Scheme No.3 commonly known as low housing income scheme. Various plots in the scheme were sold through open auction. On 9-1-1996 auction was conducted wherein the petitioner Jamshed Akhtar participated for purchase of Plot No.276-X measuring ten Marlas. He deposited Rs.50,000 as call deposit which was pre-requisite for participation. In that auction he was the highest bidder as he offered Rs.3,00,000 per Maria, excluding other charges as such price of the plot came to Rs.30,0000. The petitioner was directed to further deposit Rs.50,000 which was complied with as such Rs.1,00,000 stood deposited and a balance amount of Rs.2,00,000 remained outstanding towards him. The petitioner was throughout willing to depsoit the same. The petitioner received a letter dated 3-3- 1996 on behalf of District Housing Society declaring that auction in his favour was not confirmed.
Aggrieved by this letter the petitioner moved this Court through the instant writ petition. The petition was admitted to regular hearing.
2. In response thereof the learned counsel on behalf of A.-A.G. Appeared for the respondents alongwith an officer deputed by respondents Nos. l and 2 to appear in Court alongwith the record.
Arguments were heard and the relevant record perused. The main contention of the petitioner is that he fulfilled all the requirements of the auction and he was entitled that the plot in question should have been transferred to him being the highest bidder. Further, submits that another auction was held on 13-5-1996 for various plots making part of the scheme. In that auction the maximum bid was to the tune of Rs.30,000. The plot sought to be purchased by the petitioner is similar to the various plots auctioned through the subsequent auction proceedings. Since majority of plots did not fetch bids more than Rs.30,000, therefore, a meeting of the District Housing Committee was convened which was headed by Deputy Commissioner as its Chairman. It was resolved in the Committee that all the bidders who had offered Rs.30,000 per Maria or above may be transferred plots in their favour. Even those bidders who had offered amount less than Rs.30,000 per Maria were also permitted to obtain allotment if they were propared to pay Rs.30,000 per Marla as a price. According to petitioner various bidders enhanced their bid to Rs.30,000 and they were allotted respective plots in their favour.
3. As the petitioner had been refused allotment of plot and according to respondents the auction in his favour had not been confirmed, therefore, he moved an application before the Chairman who was heading the District Housing Committee i.e. Respondent No. 1 praying that maintaining the principle of parity he should not be discriminated against and plot in question should be allotted to him because he had also offered Rs.30,000 per Marla and also 1/3rd price of the plot i.e. Rs.1,00,000 stood already deposited with the respondent authority (Rs.50,000 as call deposit and Rs.50,000 deposited subsequently as instalment). The petitioner's demand was not acceded to on the ground that he failed to participate in the subsequent auction conducted on 13-5-1996. In the comments submitted by the respondents as well the main stand taken by them is that the petitioner did not participate in the subsequent auction and the abovereferred decision of allotting plots to the bidders of Rs.30,000 per Marla was applicable only to the auction purchasers in the subsequent auction and also that the respondents authority was authorised to accept or reject any bid without assigning any reason. It was further submitted that since petitioner's auction had not been approved, therefore, he had no locus standi to claim allotment or transfer of the plot in his favour.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of A.-A.G. Assisted by the officer deputed by the respondents made submission on the same line mainly laying emphasis on the ground that it was admittedly within the discretion of respondent authority to accept or reject any bid. The discretion exercised by the respondent is not justiciable.
5.I have gone through the statement of terms and conditions of auction circulated by the respondent and condition No.8 is particular. No doubt it has been specified that auction can be approved or rejected but that does not mean that any officer or authority can exercise discretion in an arbitrary manner. Every discretion vested in officer or authority has to be exercised judiciously and by keeping in view the principle of parity as contained in Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. To test or examine whether jurisdiction has been exercised fairly and honestly the same has to be attested objectively by keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the given case. In the instant case it is an admitted fact that the respondent authority has accepted the bid of those bidders who offered Rs.30,000 per Marla as price of the plot. The same amount has been offered by the petitioner as a highest bidder. So much so he moved an application praying that his bid should be accepted and the auction in his favour should be approved on which a report seems to have been called from respondent No.2 i.e. Secretary District Housing Committee, Sahiwal. Secretary recommended approval of auction on the ground that similar and identical treatment should be meted out to the petitioner and he should not be discriminated against as Rs.30,000 per Marla had been accepted as a price from other biders rather those bidders who had offered less than Rs.30,000 per Marla were provided a chance to enhance their bid so as to bring it up to Rs.30.000 per Marla. The respondent's counsel has not been able to explain or satisfy as to why the petitioner's auction was not approved on the same terms and conditions and how or on what basis his case was differentiated. The only explanation tendered was that the petitioner had participated in the earlier auction held on 9-1-1996 and failed to participate in the auction held on13-5-1996, therefore, his bid was not approved. The explanation is far less their I being satisfactory or reasonable. The same can be termed as absolutely technical and highly unjust.
6.On the contrary the petitioner has explained that he could notparticipate in the subsequent auction because he has already been declared highest bidder and also an application praying for acceptance of his bid had been moved. His participation in the subsequent auction would have tantamounted to contradicting his own stand. Be that as it may the fact remains' that various persons who participated in the auction were allowed allotment/transfer of the plot on paying Rs.30,000 per Marla as price of the land which amount has already been offered by the petitioner.
There seems to be no justification to deprive him from the allotment of the plot. The discretion exercised in this case by the respondents is, therefore, cannot be held to be just and proper and the same is declare&to be illegal and without lawful authority. The writ petition.Is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is declared to be successful bidder and the respondents are directed to allot Plot No.276-X in favour of the petitioner on his depositing the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000 excluding other charges.
7.There will, however, be no order as to costs.